» District of Columbia

Attorney malpractice claims in $100 million D.C. patent malpractice suit survive preliminary motions

In Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg L.L.P., No. 02-2165 (D.D.C. May 23, 2011), the District Court, in a 120-page opinion, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss an attorney malpractice suit arising out of patent litigation. In this suit, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants’ alleged misdeeds resul… Read More
Read More

Employees’ Claim Against Employer for Unpaid Wages Dismissed Pursuant to Iqbal and Twombly

In Eric Johnson, et al, v. Prospect Waterproofing Company, et al., Civil Action No. 11-0077, (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2011), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit against their employer for unpaid wages for failing to state a claim pursuant to Ashcraft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2… Read More
Read More

Lawyer Professional Liability: D.C. Circuit discusses remedy following breach of fiduciary duty

In So v. Suchanek, Nos. 10-7071, 10-7087 and 10-7113 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 20, 2012), a professional liability action against an attorney, the Court considered the defendant attorney's appeal of a judgment that the attorney had to disgorge fees, with interest, totaling $455,933.52 as a result of the attorney's breach of… Read More
Read More

Employee’s disclaimer of third party tort action against employer’s customers upheld by D.C. Court

In Brown v. 1301 K Street Limited Partnership, No. 09-CV-695 (D.C. Nov. 23, 2011), the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the validity of a disclaimer signed by a security guard, in which she agreed that her workers’ compensation benefits from her employer would be her sole remedy and that she waived any rights she had to m… Read More
Read More

D.C. Workers Compensation:  Court of Appeals rejects objective standard for mental disability claims

In Muhammad v. District of Columbia Depart. Of Emp. Serv., No. 10-AA-1049 (D.C. Jan. 5, 2012), the claimant had suffered a back injury on the job and was on temporary total disability. After three years, the employer enrolled the claimant in vocational rehabilitation, in an effort to find him sedentary work. After a year of… Read More
Read More

Negligence per se based on traffic regulations: A D.C. refresher

Two recent opinions from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia provide a refresher on D.C. law concerning negligence per se based on the violation of D.C. traffic regulations. In Mahnke v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 10-0021 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2011), the plaintiff was a pedestrian who ma… Read More
Read More

Independent contractor rule in D.C.: WMATA not liable for tuberculosis exposure

In a recent case before the District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to invoke two exceptions to the “independent contractor rule.” Andrews v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119916 (D.D.C. 2011). That rule provides that a principal is generally n… Read More
Read More

Subrogation suit dismissed based on contractual limitations period in arbitration clause

In Vigilant Insurance Company v. American Mechanical Services of Maryland, LLC, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a subrogation action by an insurance company against a contractor on the grounds that the claim was barred by a contractual limitations period. Vigilant sued American Mechanical Serv… Read More
Read More

Legal malpractice in D.C.: the common knowledge exception to the requirement of expert opinion

In Carranza v. Fraas, No. 05-0117 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2011), Judge Urbina granted summary judgment on legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims, due to the plaintiffs’ lack of expert testimony supporting some of their claims, and the plaintiffs’ lack of admissible evidence to support their last remainin… Read More
Read More

Legal malpractice decision explores roles of judge, jury, and expert in District of Columbia

In a legal malpractice case, Hickey v. Scott, No. 07-1866 (D.D.C. July 11, 2011), the District Court explored the respective roles of the judge, jury, and expert under D.C. law. (An earlier decision in this case was previously discussed here.) The claim discussed in this ruling was the plaintiff’s allegation that the… Read More
Read More